It was a lack of supervision pure and simple IMO. How the "peons" get hung out while the people responsible for supervising the "peons" skate (while no surprise to anybody with experience) is disgraceful. A transfer, a forced retirement or a bad OER isn't enough when other people are being put behind bars.

"Out of every hundred men, ten shouldn't even be there, eighty are just targets, nine are the real fighters, and we are lucky to have them, for they make the battle. Ah, but the one, one is a warrior, and he will bring the others back." -- Hericletus, circa 500 BC

Maybe I'm misreading you here. Are you seriously trying to draw moral equivalency between the American military and the murderous insurgents? Because in case you've forgotten, they're the bad guys who are doing the evil ****. Are they really your measuring stick for good conduct?

Originally Posted by Mtripp

Yet you want to talk about hanging Rumsfeld?

First off, in the context of this thread, I don't buy the whole "few bad apples" theory. The blame rests on the people who made the decisions as surely as those who executed them. Janis Karpinski was a scapegoat.

Okay, here is the soapbox. I want Rumsfeld to hang because he hung the US military out to dry.

Seven years ago there were a pair of profs - some combination of international law and history - who came to my dorm to give a presentation about the illegality and unjustifiability of the impending invasion of Iraq.

I went toe to toe with them. I gave them the whole spiel about Schwarzkopf's Desert Storm pep talk and the subsequent massacre of Shiites. Nerve gassing of the Kurds. Genocide against the Marsh Arabs. Obstruction of the IAEA and brinksmanship with the Iranians. I even brought up the untenability of the sanctions. The whole nine yards.

Then Rumsfeld goes and fucks everything up. He builds this retarded little fantasy world where the whole thing's going to take six months and a hundred thousand troops, and he publicly upbraids guys like Shinseki who provide more realistic estimates.

Seven fucking years later, Iraq Body Count's at 96050 casualties on the low end, and iCasualties is at 4715 Western deaths, plus another 8158 ISF deaths - and counting.

Oh, and don't forget the money.

Q: Mr. Secretary, on Iraq, how much money do you think the Department of Defense would need to pay for a war with Iraq?

Rumsfeld: Well, the Office of Management and Budget, has come up come up with a number that's something under $50 billion for the cost. How much of that would be the U.S. burden, and how much would be other countries, is an open question.

The Congressional Research Service, back in '08, put the estimated funding of the war in Iraq at 657.3 billion from FY '01 - FY '09 (source).

Rumsfeld was off by a full order of magnitude and counting.

All of this puts me and Christopher Hitchens in the same boat.

Orwell thought that the Spanish Civil War was a just war, but he also came to understand that it was a dirty war, where a decent cause was hijacked by goons and thugs, and where betrayal and squalor negated the courage and sacrifice of those who fought on principle. As one who used to advocate strongly for the liberation of Iraq (perhaps more strongly than I knew), I have grown coarsened and sickened by the degeneration of the struggle: by the sordid news of corruption and brutality (Mark Daily told his father how dismayed he was by the failure of leadership at Abu Ghraib) and by the paltry politicians in Washington and Baghdad who squabble for precedence while lifeblood is spent and spilled by young people whose boots they are not fit to clean.

I'll clarify.
It's my personal policy because I've seen some very stupid ****.

An IED goes off and people start taking pictures and not doing their 5/20s or watching their arcs and ****.
Some guys get turned to paste inside a vehicle and a kid decides to whip out his camera to take shots.
American soldier kills himself in a kitchen tent and someones first reaction is to wonder if they cold snap a picture.
Horseplay seems to become moron-play when a camera is introduced.

Of course **** is going to happen anyways but in my experience when a camera is introduced people tend to up the level of stupidity to capture it on camera.

Also with this newest generation everything is about posting pictures on social networks. You can find ANYTHING on youtube. People love an audience. Now private shreks video of him putting a minature flag in the severed hand of a suicide bomber can gt 17 million hits.
I find if you remove the temptation of "getting the lol shot" soldiers stay on task easier.
TheRuss makes a great point though. Without cameras some of the stupid, wrong and illegal acts would have never been brought to light (and justice).
It's a toss up.

Less temptation/Miss possible breaches of the law
More temptation/bigger chance ctching people who break the law

I'm still all for "gun" camera's and security cameras and **** (especially when dealing with locals/prisoners etc..) but I don't think #2 rifleman needs a digital camera in his 2nd line gear. Just too much temptation.

Last edited by vigilus; 5/08/2010 9:59pm at .

You are not free whose liberty is won by the rigour of other, more righteous souls. Your are merely protected. Your freedom is parasitic, you suck the honourable man dry and offer nothing in return. You who have enjoyed freedom, who have done nothing to earn it

Sorry. I thought it was Plasma at first then I went back and didn't see Plasma's name. I'm all confused by the colour red Apparently.

You are not free whose liberty is won by the rigour of other, more righteous souls. Your are merely protected. Your freedom is parasitic, you suck the honourable man dry and offer nothing in return. You who have enjoyed freedom, who have done nothing to earn it